Techdirt Reports Getty Images Sued for Sending Extortion Letter to IP Law Firm!

[Matthew Chan]

I have been saying for years that this was bound to happen. In Getty's relentless quest to prop up their diminishing revenues from the commoditization of digital content, they have overzealously and recklessly sent an extortion letter to the wrong party! 

Techdirt has broken the story of a Getty extortion letter victim fighting back with their own lawsuit against Getty!

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140820/18020328272/getty-threatens-wrong-ip-law-firm-its-copyright-trolling-efforts.shtml

That Techdirt article makes mention of an IBT article that ELI was quoted in.

http://www.ibtimes.com/getty-images-lawsuits-enforcement-or-trolling-fear-letters-dwindling-stock-photo-giant-hits-federal

Techdirt makes mention of the recent loss by Getty Images where Getty themselves were guilty of copyright infringement!

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131122/16151225339/statutory-damages-strike-again-afp-getty-told-to-pay-12-million-using-photo-found-via-twitter.shtml

Techdirt also mentions the recent Getty Images embedding program which ELI feels is very risky for anyone to utilize due to Getty's reputation in the extortion letter business.

Ironically, it is another IP Law firm (Schneider Rothman Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC) that is suing for declaratory judgement against Getty Images that they did not infringe.

http://www.sriplaw.com/sued-getty-images/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/237328425/Getty-Complaint

[Matthew Chan]

In SRIPLAW's recent lawsuit against Getty Images asking for declaratory judgement that they did NOT engage in copyright infringement, there appears to be some nice little nuggets for Florida extortion letter victims.

SRIPLAW is based in Florida. Notable assertions and defenses made in their lawsuit include:

Item 41: The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act broadly declares in §501.204(1) that “unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful.

Item 43: Getty’s practice of utilizing a computerized image matching system that searches the internet and identifies Getty images, including thumbnail sized images, on an individual’s or  business’ website, and then automatically sending the individuals or businesses identified by Getty’s system a form letter alleging infringement, threatening lawsuits and demanding settlement payments, is an unfair or deceptive act or practice that violates FDUTPA.

Item 45: Getty’s practice is unfair or deceptive because the automatically generated form letters Getty sends demand payment in an amount that Getty would only receive for the highest resolution commercially licensed version of the image, not the lowest resolution thumbnail sized image the recipient is accused of infringing.

Item 47: Getty’s unfair and deceptive practice has damaged other individuals and  businesses similarly situated to SRIPLAW who received letters from Getty that falsely claimed copyright violations and, because these other individuals and businesses lack the technical or legal knowledge and/or funds necessary to defend themselves from Getty false claims, have instead paid extortion money to Getty that Getty was not entitled to.

Item 48: Unless enjoined, Getty’s unfair and deceptive practice will damage other individuals and businesses who receive letters from Getty that falsely claim copyright violations and demand settlement payments to resolve such false claims.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

This may be the beginning of the end.

[stinger]

Gotta like these guys.  Anyone got any ideas of how we can support them.

Would any of the statistics Greg has been compiling, be of use to them?  We should find ways to get on their bandwagon.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Getty will be begging to settle this, and will probably state it was an honest mistake. Too bad they couldn't wait until they got the asshole Seattle Attorney Timothy B. Mccormack letter with the jacked-up demand account, and they could have gone after that fuck-wad as well.

[Matthew Chan]

Here's my take with SRIPLAW...

I think it is largely a publicity play.  No way they could do that kind of analysis and defense of the hot-linked image, Perfect 10, etc. without them knowing about ELI and all the information here.  They had to know that Getty would likely not sue over such a piddly amount.  But perhaps that they are an IP Law firm makes them extra sensitive.

My thinking is they could have taken their argument directly to Getty and they would have killed the letter.

Lawsuits become a public matter of interest and I think SRIPLAW knows this.  Hence, they got some nice publicity with Techdirt, us, and who knows who else?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

This is awesome! 

I agree with Jerry's comments about the beginning of the end.

I hope that it is more than just a publicity stunt and they truly see what Getty Images and McCormack IP Law are doing is wrong and see an opportunity to do something.  If it is more than a publicity stunt I have a LOT of information I would be willing to share if they are willing to get it into the records and make Getty and McCormack IP law do some splainin'.

May have to reach out to them over the weekend.

[Joel Rothman]

Hi everyone.  Joel Rothman here.  Partner in Schneider Rothman Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC.  http://www.sriplaw.com 

We are the plaintiff in the case filed this past week against Getty Images, Inc.  I have visited ELI previously, but did not realize there were forums here.  I do now after speaking yesterday with Oscar Michelin. There seems to be a wealth of valuable information here and I commend everyone who is contributing productively to increase awareness and understanding about copyright and the law.

When we filed suit on Wednesday, 8/20/2014, I posted this on our website http://www.sriplaw.com/sued-getty-images/.  Let me go into a bit more detail about our legal strategy (Getty's attorneys, please pay attention).

The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) broadly declares that “Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful. See s. 501.204, Unlawful acts and practices here:http://goo.gl/fi4PPa

We have alleged in our Complaint here http://www.scribd.com/doc/237328425/Getty-Complaint that the practice of sending letters "utilizing a computerized image matching system that searches the internet and identifies Getty images, including thumbnail sized images, on an individual’s or  business’ website, and then automatically sending the individuals or businesses identified by Getty’s system a form letter alleging infringement, threatening lawsuits and demanding settlement payments," is an unfair or deceptive act or practice that violates FDUTPA, "because a significant number of the individuals and businesses who receive Getty’s letters (i) are not violating any of Getty’s exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106; (ii) are entitled to the statutory defense of fair use  pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 107; and/or (iii) are entitled to DMCA safe harbor pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512, and therefore have not committed infringement and are not liable to Getty."

We intend to demonstrate this to the Court. 

If we are successful, then FDUPTA provides for the following remedies:
501.211 Other individual remedies.—
(1) Without regard to any other remedy or relief to which a person is entitled, anyone aggrieved by a violation of this part may bring an action to obtain a declaratory judgment that an act or practice violates this part and to enjoin a person who has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely to violate this part. See: Fla. Stat. Ch. 501.211 Other individual remedies, here: http://goo.gl/ntlMvl

See also, Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Timeshares Direct, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)(Section 501.211(1), Florida Statutes, permits a claim for injunctive relief by “anyone aggrieved” by an unfair or deceptive act, which has occurred, is now occurring, or is likely to occur in the future. Accordingly, regardless of whether an aggrieved party can recover “actual damages” under section 501.211(2), it may obtain injunctive relief under section 501.211(1)). Case here: http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2012/090312/5D11-1577.op.pdf

We believe that Getty's past conduct demonstrates that the unfair or deceptive act it committed against our firm, has occurred, is occurring, and is likely to occur in the future and, therefore, Getty must be enjoined from further commission of said act in the future.

It is just that simple.

Comments? Questions?

[Steve Schlackman]

Hi Everyone,

I am a colleague of Joel Rothman and recently posted an article on his case as well.  http://artlawjournal.com/getty-images-sued-deceptive-practices/

I also have two other articles on tips for handling a Getty Extortion Letter. 

http://artlawjournal.com/respond-getty-images-demand-letter/    http://artlawjournal.com/tips-responding-getty-images-demand-letter/ 

I hope you find them useful.  Keep up the good work. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Welcome to the forum gentlemen! Not only does getty send out form letters without fact checking, when it gets escalated to Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack they don't bother checking any fact either, they just raise the demand amount to another absurd level. As far as I am concerned the Washington State Bar Association, should pull his license to practice law. We've seen letters of images that were hotlinked ( as in your case) letters with images in the public domain, letters with images where the photographer has severed ties with Getty, letters where the images were licensed in good faith (as in my case), and even a letter form a US war veteran that was collecting cigarettes to pass out to other veterans.. Getty and their ilk need to be stopped.

[stinger]

Steve and Joel, you guys rock!

I know you guys need to keep your case focused and to the point.  But, if you determine that you need any particular kinds of examples of things that Getty or their close partners, McCormack IP Law, are or have been doing to targets, this is the place to ask.

Over the years the nature of their letters has changed somewhat.  Bar complaints, Attorney General complaints, letters written to state and federal lawmakers have tended to modify their behavior somewhat.  The readers of this forum have seen it all.  Many have deep files on Getty, McCormack and their practices. 

I am fairly certain that if you need certain evidence, just ask and there is a good chance someone will be able to provide something close to what you need.

Good luck in this suit.  We are all behind you.

[Joel Rothman]

We've seen letters of images that were hotlinked ( as in your case) letters with images in the public domain, letters with images where the photographer has severed ties with Getty, letters where the images were licensed in good faith (as in my case), and even a letter form a US war veteran that was collecting cigarettes to pass out to other veterans.. Getty and their ilk need to be stopped.

I routinely represent photographers, illustrators, artists, writers, and architects in copyright infringement matters.  If I routinely did to alleged infringers what Getty did to me, the bar would have my license.

[Joel Rothman]

Steve and Joel, you guys rock!

I know you guys need to keep your case focused and to the point.  But, if you determine that you need any particular kinds of examples of things that Getty or their close partners, McCormack IP Law, are or have been doing to targets, this is the place to ask.

Stinger, thank you for the kind words, and for your offer of assistance.


There will likely be a need for us to take you up on it.  That need may come quickly since we are assigned to Judge Middlebrooks who runs a "rocket docket" in the Southern District of Florida.  I promise to keep you updated.   

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Funny thing is, most if not all of us active members here are content creators of some form or another, Getty and those other named copyright trolls, like to spew the BS that ELI is against copyright..Nothing could be further from the truth.. It's the heavy handed, fear tactics and general way they handle things, that pisses us off.

[Joel Rothman]

Funny thing is, most if not all of us active members here are content creators of some form or another...

Robert, you make a very important point. We are not against content.


For example, my firm and attorney Darren Quinn of San Diego recently filed a case against CoreLogic.  You can read the Complaint here.


In the case of CoreLogic, the company has been systematically removing metadata from photographs (e.g. in EXIF) uploaded to CoreLogic's real estate multiple listing service (MLS) platforms.  CoreLogic then offers MLS organizations a chance to make extra revenue by adding the photographs in their databases to proprietary CoreLogic subscription databases like RealQuest where the photographer is unable to identify infringement because the metadata has been removed, and where CoreLogic makes a profit from using photographs without compensating the copyright owner.  Not to mention that most real estate agents treat their local MLS systems as free image databases they may dip into with impunity. 


So, again, we are not against content. And as for what we are in favor of, I would say we are for fairness.